Tulasi Venkat Subbaiah vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that it would not interfere with the pending proceedings before the competent authorities, considering that a crime was registered and the seizure was made in connection with potential violations of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, which was subject to prior judicial directions. However, acknowledging the petitioners' willingness to furnish a bank guarantee, the Court directed that appropriate samples be taken from the seized stock by the third respondent for further proceedings. The seized stock is to be released to the petitioners upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount determined by the third respondent. This action is to be completed within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioners, engaged in selling organic fertilizers for five years, possess GST provisional registration. On September 21, 2017, officials, including the third respondent, seized the petitioners' stock. The petitioners filed these Writ Petitions challenging the seizure. The Court noted a previous order in W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch, modified by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016, which directed specific steps by Agricultural Officers in cases of violation of the Fertilizer (Control) Order. A crime was also registered concerning the seized stock. The petitioners expressed willingness to furnish a bank guarantee for the seized stock.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should interfere with the pending proceedings before the competent authorities concerning the seized stock and registered crime, given the prior directions regarding violations of the Fertilizer (Control) Order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners are challenging the seizure of their stock. While not explicitly stated, their filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the legality or necessity of the seizure. They are willing to furnish a bank guarantee. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the Court's decision to not interfere with pending proceedings suggests that the authorities were acting within their purview, and the existence of a registered crime supports this.
Sections Cited
Fertilizer (Control) Order
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.33892 and 34367 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are selling the organic fertilizers for the last five years to the nearby ryots of Badvel Town and there are no complaints with regard to their fertilizers. The petitioners also possess GST provisional registration. While so, the third respondent along with the other officials came to the premises of the petitioners on 21.09.2017 and seized the stock. Challenging such seizure, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
This Court in W.P.No.25293 of 2014 and batch dated 10.07.2015 as modified by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1122 and 1136 of 2016 dated 03.11.2016 directed certain steps to be taken by the Agricultural Officers in case of violation of the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order. Since the stock is seized and a crime was also registered, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the pending proceedings before
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.